Of course not, certainly not here, even as some try to be. For that we can thank our Constitution.
And Mister......., you imply that its criminal to wish to share the wealth....
Then imagine a world where there was absolutely NO sharing of anything........imagine the hatred/strife/continual warfare between the haves and the have nots..
Of course, this scenario is only a fantasty....Its my opinion that it is mans way to share, to be social....at least most of us. .
And if that is socialism or criminal....then so be it.....
We live in a "$100K" house, a dump, IMO and have two $1,000 cars...
I have been there(un and under employed from '94 onward)....but now we are retired and on social security...
The point is, our tax rates must be made more fair, in other words, the wealthy must pay a greater percentage..
I paid about 11% , as I recall in federal taxes....Romney ....13%..
I earned $30000 annuaally....Romney 3000000 plus.....and what exactly did he do that was worth that much ?
IMO, Romney was horribly overcompensated !
NO man needs so much money, $100K annually is sufficient !
It is not good that the 1% have so much and that others (99%) have "so little".
How do you determine how much is "enough"? Wages and prices, in a perfect world of free market capitalism, are determined by supply and demand. By what someone is willing to pay for a particular product or service. NOT by governmental edict/mandate nor by pretentious "moral" outrage. If a person can make 100K or a BILLION dollars a year, legally, then who are you to stand up and say "that's too much"?
Do you want someone like me who has far less than you to come to you and tell you that? Do you want others who have far less than you to come up to you and demand that you divide your acquired wealth, no matter how much that is, with them? Exactly by what right is anyone obligated to anyone else???
Remember, that's why this country was founded in the very first place. So that no individual, no monarchy, no army, no dictator, would be able to merely come in and take away what another person had worked for.
Let me interject here Mr. Progressive.
What is criminal isn't the act of sharing. We all understand that sharing is good. The thing that is wrong is government mandated sharing. That doesn't make it sharing anymore man....it makes it taking and giving. Sharing implies that a person gave up his own possessions willingly to another person.
Sharing doesn't need to be controlled by government because that doesn't make it sharing anymore.
Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.
Whats also wrong are government mandated property laws ....
We can go in theses circles forever ... Or we can agree that property is not in the state of nature, and that for society to work we need to agree on isntitutions and the instition of property is no more important than that of democracy or the commons or autonomy.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville